Skip to main content

DPSP (DIRECTIVE PRINCIPAL OF STATE POLICY)

 DPSP (DIRECTIVE PRINCIPAL OF STATE POLICY)


When we vote to a person there are certain things which we look for into the candidate like their education, past- records, criminal records, party manifesto, to name a few and manifesto of their party. 

Manifesto of a party includes kind of guideline or promises, which they will try to fulfilled once that party comes to power. If, a party coming into the power and doesn't complete or refuse to keep its promises as mentioned in the pre-election manifesto. In this a person can't do anything against. 

When Ajit Jogi's in Chhattisgarh (Chhattisgarh Janta congress) issued their party manifesto on a stamp paper, so in case the party wins and the promises are not fulfilled, people can sue the party on the basis of their manifesto. Fundamental rights have been discussed in Article 12 - 35 of part III of constitution, while Article 36-51 have been discussed under part IV of the constitution.

DPSP have been adopted in our constitution from Irish constitution. If we consider the preamble to the Indian Constitution, then it has mainly 3 goals to achieve

 1. Social

2. Economic

3. Political justice 

And the combination for meeting these goals is carried out by Fundamental rights & DPSPs. 

The difference between the Fundamental rights and DPSP are:

1. Fundamental rights are a kind of negative rights. They lay downs certain things that must not be done by the state if like inequality, arbitrariness. 

While directives principal is a kind of positive rights, which lays down all the things which the state must do to meet the ends. 

2. Fundamental rights are more concerned with Political, while DPSP are more concerned with social justice & economic justice. 

3. Fundamental rights are justifiable rights which can be settled or enforced by courts, which lays that if Fundamental rights don't respect the state, then we can approach to the court so that court can pass the statement to enforce the Fundamental rights by the state. DPSP are non-justiciable rights, if states don’t respect the part IV of the constitution, then a person is not allowed to approach to the court. 

In Article 37, says that DPSP are non-enforceable. As Article 36 is a definition clause it says that article 12 which tells about the state which also be applicable in Part IV. 

The characteristics of article 37 are 

1. It says that directives principals are non- enforceable rights. 

2. It says for the country to have a good governance it is very to have Directives Principals which is to be consider are our fundamental sources.

3. It says the government or state before amending a new law they have to follow the Directives Principals. 

DPSP is not a moral role it is an enforceable only by the public opinion at large. Any government can only rules over, when it has a huge number of voters. So, if Government doesn't bring good policies, also not respecting the directives Principals due to this after 5years that party may not win over public next time. 

Due to such things, collecting popular vote, public opinion the state and government are bound to respect the DPSP policy strictly. 


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree